Asleep
Asleep
Perhaps I’ll dream tonight;
Dreams of a different kind.
I’m still sleeping.
Tomorrow is a certainty;
Promising to leave this night behind.
But I’m still dreaming.
Wondering when I’ll wake up.
By Child of the Ocean © 2011
Huzzah! People give a $#!% about Her Majesty again!
Just in case Mother England is feeling all relevant and consequential all of a sudden with William and Kate marrying, here’s a reminder that we’re no longer in the 19th century, and that the monarchy and its bigotry and arrogance never was, and still isn’t, something to be celebrated. That’s especially true given there has never been so much as a simple apology, let alone compensation, for the murder and pillage it sanctioned in every “heathen-infested” corner of this planet. On a day when over 300 people lost their lives in some of the worst tornadoes in US history, the media outlets were obsessed with events in old Blighty. Seriously, what’s changed?
Celebrity Fit or Fugly
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder but I was interested in finding out what the Fit or Fugly iPhone app had to say about some celebrities (granted, the “ugly” layer first up is more hated than celebrated). Here are the results…
PS: To all the Justin Beiber fans visiting – he got a 9/10 – but you can’t blame me for cringing at the thought of seeing him next to the grown ups above right?!
“Sticky labels” – by Noel O’Hare
The following article by Noel O’Hare appeared in the New Zealand Listener magazine on 4th September 2004. I’m putting it here in case it ever gets lost in the archives. Raises an interesting question.
What’s in a name? A lot if it’s a label bestowed on you by a psychologist or psychiatrist. If you’re diagnosed with a mental disorder, it could have a lasting effect on your career, your personal relationships and your credibility as a citizen. Unlike a physical ailment, which everyone accepts can be cured or controlled, a mental disorder is often seen as a permanent weakness, which may reassert itself again under stress.
Mental health professionals decide what label to put on your behaviour by consulting the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM IV). This 943-page tome, often dubbed the “Psychiatric Bible”, lists more than 350 disorders. Published by the American Psychiatric Association, it dominates the field of mental health in the way that Microsoft Windows dominates computing, but it has proved a useful classification tool, enabling psychiatrists whether they work in Wisconsin or Wellington to agree on a diagnosis. The trouble is, the number of behaviours classified as mental disorders is increasing at such rate that by the time the fifth edition comes out in 2010 most of us may be able to be labelled as mentally disordered.
As it is, the current DSM IV has come in for fierce criticism from inside and outside the psychiatric profession. One of its most trenchant critics, prominent US psychiatrist Paul McHugh, argues that it has become a grab-bag of conditions, some of which are real, but “some are dubious in the sense that they are more like the normal responses of sensitive people rather than psychiatric ‘entities’ and some are purely the inventions of proponents”.
Take conduct disorder or oppositional defiant disorder, psychiatric labels sometimes given to the “bad behaviour” of children and teenagers. Are they real syndromes or the normal behaviour of kids who have had bad parenting or suffered abuse or trauma? If you’re a shy, sensitive person, you could be branded as suffering from avoidant personality disorder (APD), while the empty-headed extrovert in the next office is seen as a model of mental fitness.
Psychiatric classifications have an aura of scientific certitude about them that is not really justified. And, unlike physical conditions, they have no proven biological basis. Brain scans won’t reveal that you’re an obsessive compulsive or suffer from kleptomania. Many mental disorders are social constructs that have more to do with fashion, the prejudices of the day and political pressure than scientific research.
The DSM is documented proof of that. From 1952, when it was first published, it has grown from a 119-page manual, listing only a few diagnostic categories, to the ultimate book of labels it is today. Along the way, disorders have come and gone. Remember multiple personality disorder (MPD)? After the 1976 movie Sybil, based on a supposedly true story, there were around 40,000 people in the US diagnosed with MPD. Now, as with recovered memory sexual abuse, it’s generally believed to be a creation of therapists, though it’s still listed as Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Before 1974, you would have been considered mentally disordered if you were homosexual. But under pressure from gay activists, the American Psychiatric Association held a vote among its members and, 5854 to 3810, the psychiatrists determined that it was not insane to be gay. The determination of physical conditions is by no means pure science, but it’s hard to imagine oncologists, under pressure from smokers, voting that smoking was healthy.
And then there was self-defeating personality disorder (SDPD), which, after protests from feminists, was removed from the DSM. SDPD sufferers were said to “choose people and situations that lead to disappointment, failure or mistreatment, even when better options are clearly available”. Feminists argued that it was a victim-blaming diagnosis that could be applied to battered women.
Political pressure has also been exerted to have conditions included in the DSM. In the late 1970s, Vietnam veterans campaigned to have chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) recognised so that they could gain access to health services. “A natural alliance grew up between patients and doctors to certify the existence of the disorder; patients received the privileges of the sick, while doctors received steady employment at a time when, at the end of the conflict in South-east Asia, hospital beds were emptying,” says McHugh, in his paper “How Psychiatry Lost Its Way”.
Though trauma caused by war has long been recognised as a legitimate condition, studies now suggest that long-term hospital treatment often makes things worse. PTSD is now one of the most frequent diagnoses applied not only to war experiences but also to any traumatic life event. As McHugh says, because people are disturbed or even have occasional nightmares after a traumatic event, this does not mean they are mentally ill and need treatment.
For DSM V, the next edition, pressure is already mounting to include parental alienation syndrome (PAS). This is described as “the systematic denigration of one parent by the other with the intent of alienating the child against the other parent”. The purpose of the alienation, apparently, is to gain or retain custody without the involvement of the father. If PAS does become accepted for inclusion in DSM, it will obviously become a legal weapon in custody battles.
Another possible inclusion in the new edition is relational disorders. If you and your partner or siblings have a rocky relationship, some psychiatrists argue, it could be that the relationship is making you mentally unwell. Some researchers also want to have compulsive shopping included. Sex addiction as a disorder has its supporters, and some definitely want Internet addiction included.
Driving the campaigns to have more and more officially recognised mental disorders is the desire for cold hard cash. If there is no DSM classification, medical insurance companies won’t pay for treatment and lawyers find it harder to convince juries of the harm done to their clients. But the biggest winners from widening the definition of mental disorders are the pharmaceutical companies. “It is well known that the drug companies provide substantial funding for the American Psychiatric Association’s conventions and major scientific journals and reap enormous profits from the expanding market for psychiatric medications. They also fund a substantial number of psychiatric researchers,” write Herb Kutchins and Stuart A Kirk in their book Making Us Crazy: DSM – The Psychiatric Bible and the Creation of Mental Disorders.
“It is less well known that some pharmaceutical companies have contributed directly to the development of DSM. The companies have a direct financial interest in expanding the number of people who can be defined as having a mental disorder and who then can be treated with their chemical products.”
Ultimately, though, the issue is not just about turning mental health into a money-spinner, but about the pathologising of everyday life. Labelling every morally or socially dubious or quirky behaviour a disorder limits our humanity. Then again, maybe I’m just a sad case of delayed oppositional defiant disorder.
The Greatest Innings Ever
This isn't the end...
The World Cup is over (there’s only one that matters). And now that the greatest cricketing nation on the planet finally has the crown it so richly deserves, some mention the fact that Tendulkar is still on 99 international centuries as something of a disappointment. Considering Tendulkar’s recent form and the fact that he’s not thinking about quitting anytime soon, it is certain that he will reach the century of centuries. So I am happy that he hasn’t reached that milestone yet because, if anything, it is reassurance that there is still more to come of the Little Master. To a cricket-mad nation, winning the World Cup means everything – but seeing Tendulkar play means even more. And what greater solace than to know that the most glorious innings of them all is still in progress – at 99 not out.
Google’s cruel Denial Of Satisfaction (DOS) trick…
GMail is down. Yes, on the very same day as the supposed “GMail killer” called Project Titan was launched by Facebook, GMail is down. Do I feel bad for Sergey & Larry? Yes, a little (world domination does have its ups and down – they should know by now…) But the person I really feel bad for is Mark Zuckerberg. Imagine commanding an army of (mostly incompetent) engineers to build a “GMail killer” only to hear on assault-day that GMail has committed suicide. That’s right. Full-on harakiri.
Okay maybe it’s just temporary but think about the symbolism people. Doesn’t it just make you tear up? Like the time when you got a ginormous wrapped box for Christmas only to find out that the actual toy inside was tiny? Or not even there? Or something you already owned? Or something broken? Or, worst of all, something you were scared of?!?
Cartoon source: nedroid.com
Four types of people
Dear Earthlings,
It has recently dawned on me that more of my awesomeness needs to be shared with the rest of the world. So I’ve decided to write this post that may revolutionize the world of psychology forever.
After having dealt with various types of people in my life (considering I’m 900 years old that’s a lot of people) ranging from ones who are adorable to those who cannot adequately be described without expletives, I have come up with the following theory. In my experience people seem to fit into one of the following four groups most of the time. When I say “soft” below, I mean being compassionate, conscientious, honest, and in general “good”; and by “hard” I mean the exact opposite. By “inside” I’m referring to their thoughts and feelings etc, and by “outside” their actions.
1. Marshmallows
Soft on the inside, soft on the outside. These are typically adorable and have a heart of gold. Includes babies and all kids in general, Princess Diana, and Mother Theresa.
2. Cream puffs
Soft on the inside, hard on the outside. These people can come across as angry, demanding or just plain bitchy but they have a strong sense of right and wrong and usually act on it. They may not have as much compassion for others as the marshmallows but still a lot more than the other 2 categories.
3. Scorched almonds
Soft on the outside, hard on the inside. These people are evil. Worse still, they can charm you all the while being evil and cold on the inside. That makes them the most dangerous. Not good people these. Examples: Mr. Burns, and most politicians.
4. Plain nuts
Hard on the inside and the outside. What is that you say? Nuts aren’t found in a box of chocolate? Yup. My point exactly little punks. These appear when something goes horribly wrong like a chocolate factory employee putting a nut in a box of chocolate. There’s nothing sweet about them. They’re just plain eeeeeevil. And nuts. Examples include Hitler, Osama bin Laden, Rush Limbaugh.
That’s it! You must feel pretty enlightened. Now go. Read some books!
Finding Osama bin Laden just got easier…
While having lunch (seafood) at the Meridian mall last week I had an eureka moment of epic proportions. I had a realisation so monumental that it could possibly change the course of history of the WHOLE world. Including both hemispheres. Including tiny insignificant countries at the far ends of the globe. Like something out of a Hitchcockian thriller, it was a twist that shapes the story so much that you’re left dizzy. So dizzy that even you’re fingers feel dizzy. You’re probably itching to know what it was that I figured out so I’ll cut the suspense. I figured out where Osama must be hiding! Yup, you heard it right. I will give you a chance to figure it out from the photo I took below (well actually my friend did because mythical creatures like me don’t carry camera phones obviously). Don’t stress if you don’t get it – clearly not even the biggest baddest spy agencies have figured it out yet so you aren’t that bad.
"Amazon". Hmm. Just a store name? ... or a big fat clue?!
See?! A different angle is all it takes...
The connection is obvious. Osama must be hiding in the Amazon where nobody expects him to be. Nobody, that is, except me of course. You’re welcome world. Now go get him soldiers!
If my hunch is true...
Those of you who think you’ve noticed the possibly strategically placed RipCurl sign next to the Amazon sign before me….sorry…I already saw that. And yes that could mean Osama is in Hawaii (obviously shaven).
I think not. He'd at least shave first.
Is xenophobia becoming “Kiwi As”?
Like most people who saw the above clip (broadcasted on TV One, and then promoted on the TVNZ website under Video Extras), I was appalled at the remarks made by Paul Henry. I was surprised that most people seemed to think that the ‘racist’ part was the mispronunciation of the name. Sure, it was very rude especially considering it was referring to an elderly lady, but any offense caused by that mispronunciation was nothing in comparison to what followed. Paul went on to say that the name “Dick Shit” is “so appropriate, because she’s Indian, so she’d be dick-in-shit wouldn’t she, do you know what I mean? Walking along the street… it’s just so funny”. That’s just ugly, Paul.
Now, Paul may not be a great intellectual personality worthy of much attention, but his antics (and the support he’s receiving) nevertheless hint at something disturbing about New Zealand society. The truth is, I feel anyway, that we have a serious and growing xenophobia problem. And the real worrying part is that it is often disguised as “humour”, or accompanied with downright denial. Most sane people will agree that xenophobia doesn’t need to become “kiwi as”, but pretending it isn’t a wide-spread problem is only going to allow it to become just that.
Bet you won’t see this billboard in downtown Auckland…
